Collins Ex Rel. Estate of Knowlton v. Marriott International, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6807

Knowlton, a member of the Abaco Club on Abaco, Bahamas, fell and died near the Club’s property with no witnesses.
Plaintiff Collins, as Knowlton’s estate representative, sues the Club and related entities for negligence, alleging breach of duty to invitees.
The Point, a rocky promontory accessible from the Club’s property, had no fencing or warnings and was not owned by the Club.
The trial established a “zone of risk” from the Point and evidence showed Club employees knew guests frequented the area.
The jury found 1% liability for defendants and 99% for Knowlton, awarding no damages; the district court granted JMOL for defendants and denied a new trial.
This appeal challenges duty, causation, evidentiary rulings, and the verdict as a potential compromise.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did defendants owe Knowlton a duty to maintain their property to protect against the Point’s dangers?	Knowlton was an invitee; Club owed a duty to maintain its property and deter foreseeable risks on the Point.	No duty to mitigate risks on land not owned; dangers were inherent and open to Knowlton; warning sufficient.	Yes; Club owed a duty to maintain its property to prevent foreseeable danger on the Point.
Was there sufficient evidence of causation to support liability without impermissible inference stacking?	Evidence linked negligent maintenance to Knowlton’s death; friends couldn’t locate him; body found later.	Causation required; no direct link; improper inference stacking could support liability.	Yes; jury could infer causal nexus from the breach of duty to the Point’s dangers.
Was the 0.22% urine alcohol evidence properly admitted and interpreted?	Evidence was irrelevant and could mislead about intoxication.	Probative to show Knowlton’s comparative fault; not tied to closed alcohol metric.	Properly admitted; not unduly prejudicial and not equated to blood alcohol.
Was the verdict a permissible damages award or an impermissible compromise requiring new trial?	Damages were substantial; zero damages suggest compromise; liability contested.	No impermissible compromise; verdict reflects disputed liability and damages.	New trial on all issues required due to impermissible compromise.

Fieldhouse v. Tam Inv. Co., 959 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (duty to warn and maintain premises; zone of risk expands beyond property)
Almarante v. Art Inst. of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., 921 So.2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (foreseeable zone of danger when property development creates risk)
Bailey Drainage Dist. v. Stark, 526 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1988) (duty to warn where danger is on adjacent property)
Gunlock v. Gill Hotels Co., 622 So.2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (duty to exercise reasonable care for invitees in passing to and from facilities)
McCormick Shipping Corp. v. Warner, 129 So.2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (impermissible pyramid of inferences warning against stacking negligence to proximate cause)
Hurst v. Astudillo, 631 So.2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (fall cannot prove liability without direct evidence of negligence or proximate cause)
Mekdeci ex rel. Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat’l Labs., 711 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1983) (compromise verdict requiring new trial when liability and damages disputed)
Westminster Cmty. Care Servs., Inc. v. Mikesell, 12 So.3d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (inadequate damages plus contested liability suggests compromise)
Snoozy v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 695 So.2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (zero damages when there is undisputed harm is inadequate)
Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1983) (complete new trial required where compromise affects liability and damages)